(SISMONDI and OUR NATIVE SISMONDISTS)

Thatthe appraisal given here of the sentimental Sismondi in relation to
scientifically “objective” Ricardo is correct, is fully
confirmed by the opinion Marx expressed in the second volume of
Theories of Surplus-Value, which appeared in 1905 (Theorien
über den Mehrwert, II. B., I. Th., S. 304
u. ff. “Bemerkungen über die Geschichte der Entdeckung des
sogenannten Ricardoschen
Gesetzes”).[2]
Contrasting Malthus as a wretched
plagiarist, a paid advocate of the rich and a shameless sycophant, to
Ricardo as a man of science, Marx said:

“Ricardoregards the capitalist mode of production as the most
advantageous for production in general, as the most advantageous for the
creation of wealth, and for his time Ricardo is quite right. He wants
production for the sake of production, and he is right. To object
to this, as Ricardo’s sentimental opponents did, by pointing to the
fact that production as such is not an end in itself, means to forget that
production for the sake of production is nothing more nor less than the
development of the productive forces of mankind, i.e., the development
of the wealth of human nature as an end in itself. If this end is set
up in contrast to the welfare of individuals, as Sismondi did, it is
tantamount to asserting that the development of the whole human race must
be retarded for the sake of ensuring the welfare of individuals,
that, consequently, no war, we shall say for example, can be waged,
because war causes the death of individuals. Sismondi is right only in
opposition to those economists who obscure this antagonism, deny
it” (S. 309). From his point of view Ricardo has every right to put
the proletarians on a par with machines, with commodities in capitalist
production. “Es ist dieses stoisch, objektiv,
wissenschaftlich,” “this is stoicism, this is
objective, this is scientific” (S. 313). It goes without saying that
this appraisal applies only to a definite period, to the very beginning of
the nineteenth century.